Re: Quantum mystics

On 6/10/24 23:17, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:31:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 6/10/24 20:59, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:25:30 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>

On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
>

I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
>
I feel a rant bubbling up!
>
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
>
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
>
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
>
Jeroen Belleman

>
Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales...
Perfessors, Albert the stone counter..
This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm
    it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes?
>
In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong,
I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams..
>
Entanglement
Imagine you on the beach.
You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same.
Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment,
'entangled'
Wave crashing on the beach.
There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away,
connected by a mile of fiber.
Photons were entangled...
Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time.
>
This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified.
I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use?
Or even DESIGNED anything ?

>
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in
classic-physics terms.
>
Nor can single-photon interferance.
>
Just accept and enjoy it.
>

>
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its
imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
>
What size do you imagine a photon to be?

>
It's unlimited. You can have an interferometer with different arm
lengths and still get single-photon interferance.
>
I noticed that on a lithium niobate Mach-Zender e/o modulator. The
interfering path lengths are different by thousands of wavelengths.
>

>
Exactly! The path length difference is limited only by the coherence
length of the light source. This is all quite natural when thinking
in terms of waves. When you think of it in terms of photons, it stops
making any sense.
>
Jeroen Belleman

 A single photon has an infinite coherence length.
 What's weird is that I can pulse a superfast laser and hit a detector
with picosecond time delay jitter, even though another experiment
shows that each photon is very long.
 It's apparently easy for you to accept that light is made of waves
until it's detected, at which time it turns into particles.
 That's the part that's magical to me.
 

I wouldn't say it like that. I'd say that the incident wave causes
a detection event. I'd never say that *light* is a particle. Where
matter and waves interact, quantization occurs.
Jeroen Belleman